NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'

from the this-muzzle-represents-my-love-for-you dept

For several years now we've documented the rise in websites that shutter their comment sections, effectively muzzling their own on-site communities. Usually this is because websites are too lazy and cheap to moderate or cultivate real conversation, or they're not particularly keen on having readers point out their inevitable errors in such a conspicuous location. But you can't just come out and admit this -- so what we get is all manner of disingenuous prattle from website editors about how the comments section is being closed because they just really value conversation, or are simply trying to build better relationships.

"After much experimentation and discussion, we've concluded that the comment sections on NPR.org stories are not providing a useful experience for the vast majority of our users. In order to prioritize and strengthen other ways of building community and engagement with our audience, we will discontinue story-page comments on NPR.org on August 23."

Again, nothing says we "love and are engaged with" our community quite like preventing them from being able to speak to you on site (this muzzle represents my love for you, darling). The logic is, as Montgomery proceeds to proclaim, that social media is just so wonderful, on-site dialogue is no longer important:

Social media is now one of our most powerful sources for audience interaction. Our desks and programs run more than 30 Facebook pages and more than 50 Twitter accounts. We maintain vibrant presences on Snapchat, Instagram and Tumblr. Our main Facebook page reaches more than 5 million people and recently has been the springboard for hundreds of hours of live video interaction and audience-first projects such as our 18,000-member "Your Money and Your Life" group.

And while those are all excellent additional avenues of interaction and traffic generation, it's still not quite the same as building brand loyalty through cultivating community and conversation on site. By outsourcing all conversation to Facebook, you're not really engaging with your readers, you're herding them to a homogonized, noisy pasture where they're no longer your problem. In short, we want you to comment -- we just want you to comment privately or someplace else so our errors aren't quite so painfully highlighted and we no longer have to try to engage you publicly. All for the sake of building deeper relationships, of course.

Montgomery talked a little more about NPR's decision on Twitter, where Mathew Ingram (one of roughly three writers I've found who gives two flying damns about the negative impact of this trend) politely pondered if NPR really tried all that hard before giving up:

@scottmdc I appreciate that. But do you think the scale shifted in part because you didn't prioritize them?

Except, as we've noted time and time again, studies show that it's not really that hard to cultivate a healthier on-site comment section simply by showing up. Just having a writer or editor show up and treat readers like human beings dramatically improves the overall tone of the conversation. This isn't something that requires all that much time and effort. But because editors can't clearly quantify the benefits of giving a damn in this fashion, they've decided it's easier and cheaper to just give up.

They're getting rid of a great community of discussion. It's the best forum I've known, with people from all walks of life discussing the news with a moderate amount of intelligence, and a healthy dose of wit. I'm pretty upset. After the comments go, I won't visit NPR much anymore. There's not much content compared to other sites. It was the discussion that kept me coming back.

Another reader offers a more blunt take:

And the "public" in public radio goes away, except for the pleas for money. There's no interaction any more, emails are ignored, Twitter is useless, and Facebook is a gross invasion of privacy. Sad NPR. And worse that the supposed advocate for the listener backs the decision. Perhaps if NPR had actually involved itself with the commenting instead of isolating and offshoring it, you would have found that things would have worked better for you.

Sadly, like Bloomberg, Recode, Reuters, Popular Science, and other sites, NPR and Montgomery round out the announcement by claiming that muzzling your community somehow illustrates a love of "deeper relationships" and "conversation":

In the eight years since NPR first launched its online comment section, the world of social media has changed dramatically, as has NPR's digital presence. We're constantly asking ourselves where we can create the best dialogue with you and how we can deepen that relationship. It's a question we will keep asking because the way we communicate online will keep changing. We're looking forward to continuing the conversation.

That sounds so much lovelier than "nobody in our writing or editorial staff wants to take the time to cultivate local on-site community," "we're lazily cutting corners" or "we don't like having our mistakes highlighted publicly right below our articles," don't you think?

Re: It's a bad financial decision as well

Indeed. I've found myself viewing websites like Politico/etc a lot less since they got rid of their comments, and hanging out at places like Reddit (where I can actually comment on news stories) a lot more.

Re:

It is a clique; I suspect most of those commentators are contributors, which are the people they should be bending over backwards to keep engaged/happy. And if they aren't contributors, then engagement with them in the comments could very well get them to become contributors.

This is cwf-rtb (or in this case 'c') at its base, and they are throwing that away. NPR see an ophthalmologist -- it appears you are short sighted.

Re:

Re:

Niche communities are still communities. There's a small and vibrant community online that loves the Alien movie franchise... they've provided me (and you if you've ever looked up Alien facts) with a good deal of information.Just because a community is small... that doesn't mean it does not have value.

Re:

How is that different from any other site? Do you honestly think that the majority of people reading an article on any site will comment, or do you think that the majority of people reading the conversation are active participants? If so, I'm afraid reality might be rather different to what you think it is.

Re:

Re:

Those are nice statistics, but can you show use how many people read the comments? And how many of those people find the comments as entertaining/ interesting as the article?I would wager that many of the regular contributors add more value to the story since they add their own thoughts and opinions.

Re:

The rule of Participation Inequality says 90 percent of all users lurk. 9 percent contribute occasionally. 1 percent engage regularly. 90-9-1 rule. this has been known since the 90s. NPR seems to follow the same pattern.

I would be interested to know how many people click to expand comments and how long they remain on the site after that time. That information would give a better view of the worth of the comment section to the NPR lurkers.

Re:

"Seems more like a clique than a community."

"Engagement" is always a minority, no one is going to post while driving their car. Even on techdirt, you aren't going to comment on stories which are innoucous or ones you have no problem with. That's fine, if people don't have anything to say, its for the best that they don't "engage", can you imagine hundreds of thousands of comments per story? That's not engagement, its chaos.

Comments have value because they are the final place for dissent, and whether people like it or not, dissent has value because otherwise you are placing your blind belief in authority, which suits those with a bully pulpit. Sure many times the dissent is wrong, but so what, don't people understand the value of free speech? You can ignore bad ideas, but if authorities clamp down on free speech, even the good ideas die, and in reality, in such conditions, bad ideas flourish.

This is why so many publications on the left have ended up closing their comments. It wasn't trolling, it wasn't "moderation", it was something far more disturbing, they were afraid their authority was being eroded by constantly being show to be wrong, being called out for their bias. They wished to go back to their position as preacher on a pulpit speaking to their flock. Simply the platform alone gives them far more credibility and sway than anyone else, and they didn't want anyone to question it.

Maybe men do comment more, men are more combative. But in battle of ideas, why is this a bad thing. Perhaps men and women aren't the same, isn't that a dangerous thought.

I've seen what goes on in "women friendly" comment sections. Like with the Mary Sue and such feminist websites where they allow comments only because they ban anyone who speaks against their ideology. They are just as cruel and trollish, its just their venom is directed only at the "right kinds of people", and so is allowed..unchecked.

The echo chamber of "engagement", or simply this effort to preserve their "appeal to authority". Orsen Well's War of the Worlds broadcast worked because there was no "clique" in a comment section to call doubt, this is the time those in media long for again, when they could control the narrative, when they were the ultimate chosen clique with a bully pulpit.

Re:

There are definitely regulars there. But there is something to be said about the "clique". I go to NPR everyday and .. spend most of my time reading the comments while never leaving one of my own. They add a lot to the discussion and additional information as well. Like another user mentioned- there are a lot of other news outlets out there. If the comments are gone, I don't have a reason to specifically visit NPR.

I left a long time ago

I used to frequent NPR news and left an occasional comment. It's a pretty small community, and you get to know the regulars pretty quickly. But then they hired outside moderators, and many comments were removed for reasons that nobody could understand. After they removed a number of my comments, I just left. Haven't frequented the NPR site in a long, long time.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's not too surprising when you think about it actually.

While yes some of them can be absolutely nuts with their various TD related obsessions, reading their comments makes it pretty clear they tend to be rather lacking in the creativity department, and in fact more often than not tend to display nothing but contempt for those with actual creativity, with their 'creativity' generally limited to typing out the same arguments and insults again and again(and again).

Managing Comments Isn’t So Easy

I hang out on Al Jazeera, and to their credit, they allow comments on most of their articles. You just have to watch out for the autocensor that triggers on certain substrings. (I’m still trying to figure out what’s offensive about the word “amateur”...)

Some of the comments there can get pretty abusive, particularly when the topic is something involving Palestine, or illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied lands.

And then there are the spammers. They have a flagging system for inappropriate postings. But the responses to that were never very quick, and I think they have become even less enthusiastic about removing these of late.

This site concentrates on, shall we say, less-than-mainstream topics. I know these topics impact all of us--that’s why I’m here. But nevertheless, you still don’t get the volume of comments that a more general-interest site like AlJ has to cope with.

Do I think AlJ will also go down the road of giving up on comments, and blocking them altogether? Yes, I fear so.

Site owners tend to feel that they must stay in full control of all comments, and a commitment like that takes both time, effort, and money. Over time, the novelty wears off and interacting with readers can become largely an annoyance -- or worse.

Disabling comments is just taking the easy way out, compared to having to constantly fight abusive trolls and spambots, as well as people who post things that could get them in legal hot water.

farcebook is not a viable platform...

...for the readers to reply immediately and directly without a fatally flawed platform as an unecessary intermediary...disappointed a number of libtard sites have gone this route, lazy, i guess... their readers are otherwise squarely in the cohort of those who excoriate such privacy-invading, censorious, mercenaries selling your demographics to any and all...

Why should News sites have comments?

Go back to the 1940's, most news obtained via newspapers. Radio not as much. By the 1970's TV was becoming a main source. Even into the late 1990's most people got news via papers, radio or TV. In none of those cases did or could the general public comment on articles other than by writing letters to the editors. Even then, most letters didn't get published. So why is it so terrible now that internet news sites have gone back to what was normal - no public comments in their publications? I've yet to hear a convincing reason why internet based sources of news should have reader comments in the first place. There are many forums available throughout the internet - not just Facebook or Twitter - that allow people to discuss whatever they want to. Let them comment there.

Re: Why should News sites have comments?

The most natural and logical place to discuss a story is where the story actually exists. You're absolutely right, people can (and will) go elsewhere to talk about stuff, but it seems pretty obvious that is something that is worse for both the commenters and the website.

Speaking personally, the single thing that a website can have that makes it more likely that I'll go there every day is a vibrant comment section on the site itself. Without such a section, there is no community. Without community, there is no reason to frequent the site unless there is a specific story I'm interested in.

Re: Why should News sites have comments?

"So why is it so terrible now that internet news sites have gone back to what was normal - no public comments in their publications?"

People were forced into not having commentary... there was no system in place at the time that would allow people to instantly connect with each other.

Well now... we have this thing called the internet. The system is now in place, easy to implement, and is wildly valuable for people. To try and force people back into a system that was one of necessity instead of one of choice sounds like a dumb and immoral thing to do to me.

"There are many forums available throughout the internet - not just Facebook or Twitter"

Yes. You are right. One of those forums is called the comment section. It's a million times easier for people if the forum is already attached to the topic.

Re: Why should News sites have comments?

Re: Why should News sites have comments?

Using your words, it's "terrible" because immediate opposition or correction of an article by a reader who differs is once again muzzled. The previous decades'"normal" never offered balance to the possible bias of the writer. Of course, NPR is not renowned for having a bias...is it.

RE: Anonymous Person - 08/17/16 @ 7:39pm

"Why should News sites have comments?".Well!... because these have opened their "cyber doors" to the public, to communicating publicly their this, that, and the other, on matters that could impact on us all! And so... to allow THEIR VOICES/ text/ images (whatever!) to be received without a "check and balance" from us, is to allow the potential harm that could flow from their potentially inaccurate reporting, to "win the day"!... and harm us!.If these were merely communicating their stuff behind closed doors!... e.g., in some boardroom!... then I-- for one!-- wouldn't feel compelled to challenge this, that, and the other emanating from their ICT! But!... they're not!... and some of their stuff, COULD KILL (by commission and/ or omission!)!.Please!... no emails!

Re: Why should News sites have comments?

We didn't have the technology back then. We do now. I think it sometimes helps to know the opinions of people across the world/nation. Why go backwards? Just because we didn't have a way to do it back then, you think it should stay the same? Come on man, it's [Current Year], get with the times.

Re: Why should News sites have comments?

So, news sources should only have the views of their editorial staff available. Unquestioned, uncorrected, with no added context or information, unless they happen to go somewhere else to see it. Because that's how it was done before modern communications platforms were available, no other reason.

That's a pretty stupid argument.

To my mind, the main issue is the lack of journalistic integrity and the 24 hour news cycle. We live in a world where some "news" sources believe that someone's random tweet is newsworthy, especially if it's a celebrity, while important information is highly skewed, if it makes it to the mainstream news at all. Where the views of a glorified internet troll are given the same credence as a noted expert if they can get a debate out of it or pretend there's 2 sides to a settled matter. This low quality reporting is affecting everything from political voting to human right efforts.

It's more important than ever to get a discussion going, but you'd rather they didn't because that's not how it worked before you were born?

Re: Why should News sites have comments?

Frankly, I liked the comments. Often they clarified or corrected points that the reporter failed to pursue. Now the only reason I'll go to the NPR site is to read the transcript of a show I only half-heard while driving -- if they bother to post a transcript.

Re: Why should News sites have comments?

The problem with your analogy is that in the early years of mass news, it was actual reporting of facts and more transparent when opinion was being given. Yes, there has always been the warping of perspective, but look at these sites calling themselves 'news' sites today. They are themselves troll factories.

If the stated purpose of the 4th estate is to engage in, protect and promote the dialog of the nation, then don't you think they should, well, have some dialog and not monologue us to death?

Re: Much of the internet will be cut off

As one of the 26%, I can tell you that this isn't just a problem with news sites. I can't count the times I've tried to find a company's customer or technical support contact information and am shown nothing but a link to their Facebook page or Twitter feed. An issue (sometimes before purchase, sometimes after) that would take all of two minutes to resolve on the phone or via email ends up going completely unanswered because they're not all that interested in having their customers actually get in touch with them.

I certainly don't mind that a corporation has a social media presence. But to focus on that alone (often under the auspices of marketing, with no technical or support involvement at all) is a mistake too.

As a more recent example, a BBC News reporter that I often watch is studying to take the US citizenship test, and I wanted to send a quick email offering my encouragement. No contact information anywhere I could find, though, alas.

Re:

You dislike NPR because a small percentage of their funding is from the government (your tax dollars) ?oryou disagree with their presentation of the news?oryou disagree with their opinions?or you dislike their asking for donations?

You must be new around here

There are some people who are NOT seeking civilized conversation or dialog. They are often called "trolls". Pretty hard to speculate on their motives, but some of them seem to seek attention while others might be sincere Sophists trying to defend intellectually bankrupt causes. Sometimes you have to speculate some trolls are paid to act insane.

By a solution solution from the perspective of saving time (especially my own), I am now advocating this three-part solution:

By "reflexive", I mean that it would first check from the side of the ostensible recipient, and if the reply is not sincere (because it will never be seen), then the reply would get an "Insincere reply" warning (which would also facilitate ignoring the post by people who don't want to waste time on trolls). Yes, there are some trolls who might try to "play to the audience", even after they were warned, but I think these three steps would get rid of most of them without requiring eternal vigilance.

Not sure if this idea applies to TechDirt. The discussions here seem pretty moribund and uninteresting. Might be due to excessive moderation or just a small number of members participating in discussions. (I often perceive the topics as too transient to comment on.)

Typo correction

"solution solution" was supposed to have been change to "seeking a solution". Not sure how that slipped in there. Pretty sure I did preview and I even remember making some last minute change in that sentence, but...

Another meta-comment on TD is that I thought it had an edit function for posts, but I was obviously mistaken. As I noted, I usually don't comment here.

Re: Re: Typo correction

Re: You must be new around here

On the surface, your three parts all seem unworkable to me, but perhaps there are missing details that changes that. I'm genuinely curious, though: how in the world is anyone going to judge the "maturity" or "sincerity" of comments?

Re: You must be new around here

I love it when you hear ideologues like NPR call those who passionately disagree with them "trolls." Sites with a very distinct, very pronounced viewpoint should not be surprised when there are folks who will denounce their work. The problem is that so few of those sites and authors are willing to debate folks who don't come from their mindset. (And by debate, I mean actual debate, not a descent into ad hominem attacks.)

I am a comment reader

I actually read comments on blogs, news sites, YouTube, etc. At times you see the worst of humanity but many times you learn things that the article didn't cover. Maybe what they fear the most is when commentors make good counterpoints? Nothing is worse than having your bias and agenda exposed.

Re: Re: Stats

The hard numbers they used were to point out that less than 1% of site visitors leave comments.

A more relevant number would be the number of visitors who read the comments.

I would guess that the number of visitors who comment here at Techdirt to be less than 1% also, but the number of visitors who read the comments to be up near 80-90% based on how fast "inside joke" comments get up voted.

Re: Re: Stats

What if their target audience isn't on Facebook?

Here's another question: What's the average age of NPR's target audience? What's the average "Internet intelligence" of their audience?Have they considered that many of their visitors may be older and not have, or more importantly don't want, to use Facebook or Twitter? This is basically NPR's way of saying they don't care about people who don't have these accounts.

Re: This would be a great place to plug ricochet

Thoughtful like this?

"They are liars. When global warming stopped trending upward, then they changed the name to climate change…they can’t be wrong about that, can they. The first solution to a questionably existent problem is to TAX the rich nations. But whose pockets get lined with these gigantic extorted funds? Certainly not the poor nations-they just get poorer. If one questions the veracity of any scientific theory, well that is a good thing. It’s part of the scientific process. But question the veracity of global warming…err, climate change, and you are a heretic. Oh and btw, what is the correct temperature of our planet and who gets to decide that? One does need to be quite a sucker to not sense a racket going on here."

"Social media is now one of our most powerful sources for audience interaction. Our desks and programs run more than 30 Facebook pages and more than 50 Twitter accounts. We maintain vibrant presences on Snapchat, Instagram and Tumblr.

Possibly a tangent...ok, so you want me to go to your site and then to another site or monitor some other service to be part of your community ...?

Re:

I'll save you some time wading through the 'Privacy Policy'.

"We can do whatever we want with your data, and you agree not to hold us responsible for any of it."

Privacy policies are there to cover the company, they're not there for the sake of the users. Ludicrously long privacy policies are a pretty good indicator that they're trying to cover every angle in as confusing a fashion as possible so that no matter what they do you still have no grounds to go after them because you 'agreed' to it, despite having no idea what it was you were reading meant(unless you happen to be a lawyer I suppose, they might be able to understand the legalese).

They like conversations in which they talk and we listen. You want to be heard? Who the hell are you? Listen and learn. That someone outside could know more about the world than they do is inconceivable to them, and an insult to their dignity.Alas, pride goeth before a fall.

Spot on! I had already concluded that NPR was a force for ill and a detriment to public understanding -- I only hope that banning comments presages a decline in nationalist corporate radio's fortunes; it would be too bad if their misinformation and misdirection were to continue, unchallenged even by vigilant commenters.

It's weird to me that we've collectively decided that news sites also have to be social-media sites. Not everything needs to be a conversation. And there are many, many forums available to discuss the news if conversation is what you want. All things considered, I'd rather news services focus their time and money on *delivering the news,* not making people happy. That's the same impulse that's seen real news traded for clickbait all over the world.

Re:

They'd get a lot less blow-back from their decisions to remove their comment sections if they'd do one simple thing:

Stop being condescending liars.

If they would just admit, "Hey, we don't want to spend the time and money it would take to properly moderate the comment section, and we could really do without people using the comment section we provide to call us out when we get something wrong, so we decided to get rid of it" the reaction would be a lot less vitriolic and/or energetic.

When they try to pass it off as just their way of showing just how much they care about the opinions and comments of those that frequent their sites however not only is it blatantly clear that that's not the case, but they're essentially saying that they think people are stupid enough to accept such pathetically obvious lies.

The loss of NPR's comments section is not much to grieve over. NPR has degenerated into yet another shameful mouthpiece for the lamestream media, much like the USSR's TASS News Agency used to run. (Yeah, I'm so old, I remember that.) NYT = Pravda.

Uh, NPR IS spending money

The usual suspects aren't cutting it for this story.

NPR does spend money. And a lot of it too. But it's spent with their "journalists" crafting very careful stories.

Only to go live and have the general public call BS on the entire production. Particularly in moments of accute need, that require the most spin, yet are most likely to be called out by members of public NOT being paid to spin.

NPR *could* do what NYTimes does- if they're absolutely forced to cover a story that's unkind to Liberals, allow no commenting on just that article! That goes the same for their most delicate word parsing efforts. Just no comment that piece. Following that, add a layer of "NPR selected" comments, that tilt the "reader reaction" in the desired direction. When the piece is archived, make these "NPR selected" comments the default display. Yes, intrepid readers *may* be able to click through and see objections, but remember, if egg really ends up on Liberals' face, there won't be comments on that piece anyway!

Re: Re: Uh, NPR IS spending money

Judging by the last sentence of that post, it's just another case of "NPR don't pander to my world view" or "my preferred right-wing outlet told me they're bad" rather than "I've looked at objective evidence and decided based on facts".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, NPR IS spending money

They'll never be able to back it up. I grew up in a right-wing household where NPR was ridiculed as commie pinko junk and I just went along with it, as kids are wont to do.

Imagine my surprise when I actually listened to the local affiliate. A science show? Two of them? A show about music, that also has live on air performances? News that covers world events? A show with two guys talking about cars for at least two hours? SO LEFTIST!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, NPR IS spending money

Always what's most disgusting about Liberals. They constantly lie and demand others prove their actions. And when proven, they say well those lies don't matter any longer, here's my new lie, prove me wrong. The rest of us have to deal with consequences and constant incriminations.

Here's PBS censoring a member of their own tribe, Jill Stein, from criticizing Hillary. There's a narrative to uphold, funny how it *always* works out that way. http://youtu.be/nvqdl_CGCGk

Re: Re: Re: Uh, NPR IS spending money

THE FUTURE OF COMMENT CLOG WINDOWS IN WEBSITES

A GLOBAL DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS MANIFESTO: A WORK IN PROGRESS (003RD EDITION, SUNDAY, AUG 21, 2016 @10:09 my time).If I may!... today, I would like to bring a more concerted focus, on the Corporate Media buzzword... SPAM! As it's not what it appears to be....What?... dear reader!... is YOUR definition of SPAM? To YOU!... dear reader!... and for example-- and as some site owners believe!... are COMMENT LOGS (CLOGS!) on site blogs/ articles/ stories that/ which contain LINKS to yet other sites, facilitating SPAM?... i.e., by mere virtue of the simple fact, that a link has been introduced by the Clog? .Although many sites encourage links, many others do not!... and thereby, such "denying sites", have denied-- and are denying!-- one fundamental means of communicating important information (and in contrast to the view of the said inventor of the Blog, Jorn Barger!... how diabolical!)!.LINKING to another site, is a common-- and functional!-- feature, of most websites!... or the ability to link, would be abandoned as a tool of Operating Systems! .Linking provides the reader with a clearer understanding of the subject one is trying to convey in a story (and why, Wikipedia-- for example!-- LINKS FOR EVERY ITEM IT DEALS WITH!)!... and!... provides a reader with a heads up on issues!... and regardless of a cited story! And re the latter!... it's like someone on a street yelling to a pedestrian, "Watch out for that pole!"... to save the pedestrian from walking into it!; or yelling (or simply saying!) "Have a good day!"... to bring a smile to some stranger! And if one is broadcasting a message to a pedestrian on the street through a hand-held device (e.g., a megaphone!... or a portable radio!)... i.e., LINKING!... is the message no less a warning?... or comforting?... because the message incorporates an "electronic mediating device"? THAT'S RIDICULOUS! And thus!... LINKING, IS NOT SPAMMING!.But!... what linking CLEARLY has become for "CERTAIN INTERESTS (i.e., 'ELITE INTERESTS', and conservative websites-- and, otherwise!... AND DAMN OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED "DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS"!-- MANY OF THESE WILL ADD!)", is a THREAT to the "S-A-N-C-T-I-T-Y" of "SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION"/ SEO based site and netizen manipulation, and the "SANCTITY" of other such "DYS-I-C TECHNOMAE (i.e., BAD INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOMAE!)" underpinning "A-N-T-I NET NEUTRALITY" and "A-N-T-I SEARCH NEUTRALITY" "C-Y-B-E-R-O-L-I-G-A-R-C-H-O-S-O-C-I-O-P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H-Y"! And!... MOST NOTABLY!... a THREAT to the D-E-S-P-A-R-A-T-E N-E-E-D on the part of these interests, TO DOMINATE THE PRESENT, AND FUTURE COURSE OF THE INTERNET! But!... and for the present!... let us continue our reflection on the notion of "SPAM"!."SPAM (the canned "Shoulder Pork and hAM"/ "SPiced hAM" luncheon meat!... as introduced by Geo. A. Hormel & Co.)", was originally registered as a trademark in 1937... being a conflation of “SPiced hAM (which was the original name)"! The name “SPAM” was chosen from entries in a naming contest at Hormel! The name was suggested by Kenneth Daigneau (who was the brother of a then Hormel Vice president!)! He was given $100 prize for winning the naming contest (so much for the appearance of impartiality!... let alone, ACTUAL IMPARTIALITY!)!.According to the official Hormel trademark guidelines, "SPAM (the food product!)", should be spelled with all capital letters! And a stipulation of the trademark, was that it should always be used as an adjective!... as in “SPAM meat”!.Hormel was able to successfully defend their trademark of "SPAM", by limiting it to this capitalized version; and thus, the usage, and spelling (“spam”, and “Spam”!) doesn’t conflict with their trademark! The "principals" of Hormel unsuccessfully defended the variant, "Spam", as an extended use of their trademark!... and resorted, to “SPAM (i.e., the use, in capital letters only!)"! .However!... much to the chagrin of Hormel Foods, the term "SPAM" has, today, come to mean-- FOOLISHLY!-- NETWORK ABUSE (i.e., by sundry post-SPAM pejorative accounts of the term!... and, in deference to a 1970s TV spiel that implicated Shoulder Pork and hAM/ SPiced hAM... in a can!... as-- somehow!-- FAKE MEAT!)!... and, in particular, "junk E-mail", and massive "junk postings"! And the TV spiel in question, is a Monty Python Flying Circus skit, on SPAM (the meat!)! .In this skit, menu items in a restaurant devolve into "SPAM"! And when a waitress in a restaurant repeats the word "SPAM" to two customers (though, to one, specifically!), a group of Vikings in the corner of the restaurant-- eventually!-- begin singing, “SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM... lovely SPAM!... Wonderful SPAM!”...and drowning out the objections by one of two customers, to being offered "SPAM" by the waitress (like "SPAM- OBJECTING" netizens do, when these shout NO to "SPAM" at-- and about!-- other netizens' Net communications!)!... until the Vikings are finally told to, "...shut up!", by the unwitting waitress (the waitress, being a metaphoric anology of a "clog facilitator"/ "site gatekeeper"!)!.While some have suggested that this hatred for "SPAM" was because "SPAM (as in the Hormel meat product!)" is sometimes satirized as “fake meat (and thus, by analogy, 'SPAM messages' are-- supposedly!-- 'FAKE MESSAGES'!)", this allegation-- while plausible enough on the surface!-- turns out to be not correct!... AT ALL!.Exactly where this skit first translated to INTERNET MESSAGES (of varying type... such as chat messages, newsgroups, etc.!), isn’t entirely clear!... as it sort of happened (i.e., the labeling of internet messages as "SPAM"!) all over the Net! And!... in a very short span of years! It is, however, well documented, that "CERTAIN" "SPAM- OBJECTING NETIZENS"... and, in each of these just cited "SPAM" categories!... have chosen the word "SPAM (consciously, or unconsciously!... knowingly, or unwittingly!... directly, and/ or indirectly!... by commission, and/ or omission!)", to refer to the 1970's Monty Python sketch! And wherein, "SPAM" is depicted as undesirable by ONE customer!... and yet!... the love of same, is drowning out... through singing by Vikings!... the conversation between the waitress, and the ONE objecting customer! And!... just like some CONSCIONABLE "viking netizens" have done-- and are doing!-- to "SPAM- OBJECTING NETIZENS (the SPAM- OBJECTING NETIZENS, having us believe, that 'L-E-G-I-T C-O-N-V-E-R-S-A-T-I-O-N-S' between "T-R-U-E N-E-T-I-Z-E-N-S-- i.e., SPAM- OBJECTING NETIZENS!-- are being "drowned out" by "Spammers"!)! And!... and just like the skit, though "SPAM" was unwanted by ONE customer-- in particular (and... was-- nevertheless!-- popping up as a menu choice by way of the offerings of the waitress!)!-- R-I-G-H-T-F-U-L C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S (e.g., Comment Logs/ Clogs... and, including links!), are, NONETHELESS, "popping up" all over the Net through the offerings of countless "democratic servers", and "viking netizens'"/ comment loggers'/ cloggers' clogs! And!... and just like the canned meat!... the "electronic product" is still edible!-- i.e., "nutritious food"!.Some examples of these cited categories of "unsolicited/ unwanted messages" being referred to as SPAM, include:.◾The first ever spam email, on May 3, 1978. Gary Thuerk, a marketer for the Digital Equipment Corporation, blasted out a message to nearly 400 of the 2600 people on ARPAnet (the DARPA-funded “first Internet”-- so-called!)! Naturally... he was selling something (computers!... or, more specifically, information about open houses!... where people could check out the computers!)! He... as a result... annoyed a lot of people! But... he also had some success with a few recipients!... who were interested, in what he was pushing! And thus... the "electronic version" of SPAM, was born!.Here’s the text of that glorious-- first-ever-- message (and as it was... in all caps!):_____

“DIGITAL WILL BE GIVING A PRODUCT PRESENTATION OF THE NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY; THE DECSYSTEM-2020, 2020T, 2060, AND 2060T. THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY OF COMPUTERS HAS EVOLVED FROM THE TENEX OPERATING SYSTEM AND THE DECSYSTEM-10 COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE. BOTH THE DECSYSTEM-2060T AND 2020T OFFER FULL ARPANET SUPPORT UNDER THE TOPS-20 OPERATING SYSTEM..THE DECSYSTEM-2060 IS AN UPWARD EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT DECSYSTEM 2040 AND 2050 FAMILY. THE DECSYSTEM-2020 IS A NEW LOW END MEMBER OF THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY AND FULLY SOFTWARE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER DECSYSTEM-20 MODELS..WE INVITE YOU TO COME SEE THE 2020 AND HEAR ABOUT THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY AT THE TWO PRODUCT PRESENTATIONS WE WILL BE GIVING IN CALIFORNIA THIS MONTH. THE LOCATIONS WILL BE:.TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1978 – 2 PM.HYATT HOUSE (NEAR THE L.A. AIRPORT).LOS ANGELES, CA.THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1978 – 2 PM.DUNFEY’S ROYAL COACH.SAN MATEO, CA.(4 MILES SOUTH OF S.F. AIRPORT AT BAYSHORE, RT 101 AND RT 92).A 2020 WILL BE THERE FOR YOU TO VIEW. ALSO TERMINALS ON-LINE TO OTHER DECSYSTEM-20 SYSTEMS THROUGH THE ARPANET. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE NEAREST DEC OFFICE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXCITING DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY._____

Being on ARPAnet, that first "SPAM MESSAGE" provoked a swift crackdown from the governing authorities!... and inspired much contemplation among the tiny community on the Net, at the time! Richard Stallman is quoted as stating... and I quote him!... “Nobody should be allowed to send a message with a header that long... no matter what it is about.” Well... with all due respect to Richard Stallman... AND I DO RESPECT HIM (AND PRAY FOR HIS SOUL!)!... the CAPS notwithstanding, it is-- virtually!-- a simple message! What appears disconcerting!... TO SOME!... is that it is a "BATCH MESSAGE (i.e., a message sent to a number of people at once!)"!... and... that it smacks of a SALES PITCH! As if to suggest, that BATCH MESSAGES!... and with the hint of a SALES PITCH (like "flyers" in one's physical mailbox!)!... are not to be accepted on the Net! Well!... says who? We've all sent out physical-- and/ or electronic!-- batch messages!... and!... have tried to "pitch" some notion (like mailing out christmas cards!... or valentines greetings!)!... though, some of which, may not have been appreciated, or desired! And... if we've been informed by a recipient-- or two, or three!-- that a given batch message (like a Christmas card!... or valentine's greeting!) is unapprciated!... undesired!... then we have-- responsibly!-- discontinued sending such messages, to the affected party, or parties! But!... that doesn't mean we must be forever banned from sending out batch messages to people (e.g., visa vie, the post office!), if a soul-- or two, or three!-- has/ have expressed some disinterest in our spin/ pitch! And although a SALES PITCH may be delivered to people that the salesperson doesn't know (i.e., the "pitched party" may not be familially related to!... or friends with!... the "salesperson"!), a salesperson has EVERY RIGHT to PITCH a product/ service (commercial, or otherwise!)! The problem arises-- however!-- when the salesperson won't receive NO for an answer!... and!... when the product/ service is of little use to anyone (or to the environment!)! And!... when the salesperson could care less to target the right audience (even if the product/ service is deemed sound!)! But!... denying a salesperson the Right-- UNDER RATIONAL CONDITIONS!-- to PITCH one's goods/ services, is to deny a person a DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to various CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS!... and!... to deny to people, products/ services that (and apart from any proprietary concerns!) may-- indeed!-- be useful to individuals!... to society!... and, to the environment!.◾A documented case among Usenet users, of March 31, 1993! This case is often-- incorrectly!-- stated to be the first usage of the term "SPAM" as referring to "SPAM messages"! This first Usenet case came when Richard Depew... who had been playing with some moderation software... accidentally ended up posting around 200 duplicate messages in a row, to the news.admin.policy newsgroup! Subsequently, the SAID first person to call this "SPAM", is thought to be Joel Furr, on March 31, 1993! Depew, himself... when he apologized!... referred to his messages, as "SPAM"! Given the time frame-- at least!-- for Joel Furr's use of this expression, and Depew's ready acknowledgement of the tag offered up by Furr, it's safe to conclude that both Furr and Depew were consciously and/ or unconsciously equating the electronic messages sent out as "SPAM messages", with the 1970s Monty Python skit!... and!... the skit's incorporation of Hormel Food's luncheon meat (although, Furr-- specifically!-- had made the initial conscious and/ or unconscious erroneous informal pejorative colloquial/ slang interpolative ascription of Hormel's luncheon meat, as bad, fake, or "popping up" meat!... or a combination of these skit associations!)!.◾A further “first use” of the word "SPAM" referring to certain electronic messages, comes from MUDs (for... Multi-User-Dungeons!)! This was a sort of real-time multi-person shared environment; a somewhat primitive version of The Sims Online, or Second Life!... and the like! In it, users could chat and interact with other people, locations, and objects, as well as create objects, and share them with the community! Basically, a really advanced chat room! The name MUD, comes from the fact that it reminded people of certain aspects of Dungeons and Dragons! In any event, "SPAMMING" was used here to refer to a few different things!... including: flooding the computer with random data (and not to be confused with batch communications!); “SPAM the database” by flooding it with new objects; and flooding a chat session with a ton of unwanted text (and... again!... not to be confused with batch communications!)!; and-- to extrapolate further!-- anything that had to do with filling other members' accounts with unwanted (but... to be sure!... HARMFUL!) electronic junk (and... once again!... not to be confused with batch communications!)! One of the earliest DOCUMENTED USES of the word "SPAM" from MUDders, arrived in 1990 (and so... predating the SAID "FIRST USE" tag, given to Joel Furr!)... when they were-- ironically enough!-- discussing the origins of the word “SPAM” as referring to electronic junk messages (and so... bringing the "origins issue" of the association of "SPAM MEAT" with electronic junk messages, even farther back than 1990!)! Undocumented sources, say, that the term "SPAM" had been around quite a bit before its use among MUDders (a rational deduction!)... and evidenced, by the content of the documented message! .◾Others say that the term originated on Bitnet’s Relay (a very early chat system in the 1980s!)! Anecdotally!... users would occasionally come on and annoy other users with unwanted text!... including, the actual "SPAM SONG" from the 1970 Monty Python skit! And so... bringing the junk electronic communications association with "SPAM MEAT", to the doorstep of the 1970s Monty Python skit!.◾Another similar chat system (TRS-80) also reported the same phenomenon!... and also called it "SPAM"! Both of these latter two chat system origins, are not documented!... but, numerous former users of these systems have stated, that they remember this term being used commonly among users of these systems! And so... if one is to believe the "anecdotal evidence" provided by the users of the TRS-80 chat system, we have further (and I suggest "rational"!) proofs, for the Monty Python association!.◾In the early days of the internet, "SPAM" was significantly more annoying than it is today! Not just because of the lack of effective filters back then, but because of the extremely slow internet connections! Even sending ASCII Art was considered "SPAM"!... as a picture sent a few times in a row, could take an enormous amount of time to download! And, with-- often!-- no real way for the end user to get around this!... except, to wait it out!... or disconnect! And so!... how is sending ASCII Art... AND COMPOUNDED BY WAY OF THE EARLY PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE NET!... to be made SYNONYMOUS with D-E-L-I-B-E-R-A-T-E H-A-R-M to our early netizen civilization? .Yes!... people were frustrated!... were upset!... but, truth be told, the frustration, and upset, was-- more often, than not!-- misplaced! For!... the ASCII Art wasn't to blame!... wasn't "SPAM"!... it was the L-I-M-I-T-A-T-I-O-N-S that ALL early netizens were forced to face!.◾In the early days of chat rooms, it was a common tactic among chatters to use large blocks of meaningless text to annoy other groups! For instance, Star Trek chatters would invade a Star Wars chat room, and post large amounts of random text!... making it impossible for the Star Wars people to talk! A veritable, NERD-FIGHT! But!... these were outright malicious attacks between dissenting Nerd Groups!... and should not be made SYNONYMOUS with batch communicating (in the sense as aforementioned!)!... i.e., made SYNONYMOUS with an attempt to communicate some holiday greeting, or some pitch of a product/ service!.◾Around the same time, the term "SPAM" became popular among Usenet groups!... and also came to be referred to as "EMAIL SPAM"! And which quickly dominated the world of "SPAM"!... and still does, to this day! Early "SPAM BOTS" simply harvested emails from Usenet newsgroup messages, which gave them extremely large email lists to work from!.◾IRC (Internet Relay Chat) was named after Bitnet’s Relay, and-- no doubt!-- the members of which, were also familiar with the then emerging electronic communications buzzwords!.◾The earliest documented "COMMERCIAL SPAM MESSAGE" is often-- incorrectly!-- cited as the 1994 “Green Card Spam incident"! However, the ACTUAL first documented "COMMERCIAL MESSAGE"-- as indicated earlier!-- was for a new model of Digital Equipment Corporation computers!... and was sent-- as stated-- on ARPANET, by Gary Thuerk, in 1978!.◾The famed "Green Card Spam incident", was sent, April 12, 1994, by a husband and wife team of lawyers!... Laurence Canter, and Martha Siegal! They bulk posted (i.e., batch communicated!)... on Usenet newsgroups!... advertisements for immigration law services! The two would eventually defend their actions (post criticisms against same!), citing the Right to Free Speech! They also later wrote a book, titled, “How to Make a Fortune on the Information Superhighway“!... which encouraged, and demonstrated to people how to quickly, and freely reach over 30 million users on the Internet, by "Spamming"! Nevertheless!... and despite their unfortunate use of the term "Spamming (and-- no doubt!-- IN REACTION to the label that was imposed on them, and their work from others!)" within their subsequent publication, their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to make a living, and to express themselves (and in a batch manner!), IS NOT DISALLOWED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR NASCENT NAIVETY ABOUT THE THEN EMERGING COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS, OF THE NET... AND-- MOST NOTABLY!... THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS THAT THE NET, AND PERSONAL COMPUTING, WERE HAMSTRUNG BY! And maybe!... hindsight being 20 20!... this sad history of failed Net communications suggests our need for a new type of email technoma! One that demarcates between, and accommodates, businesses, NGO+NPOs, and bureaucracies! A "tri-email mechanism (if you will!)"!... whereby, businesses, NGO+NPOs and bureaucracies can have their own "slot" for communication!... COUPLED WITH SEVERE PENALTIES-- BOTH CIVIL/ TORTIOUS, AND CRIMINAL!-- FOR DELIBERATELY EMAILING TO THE WRONG WINDOW (AND, UNSOLICITED!)! And... maybe!... a "fourth" email slot, for family, friends-- and otherwise permitted souls!-- to communicate (and!... with the same failsafeguard checks, as that to be met by members of any, or all, of the previously mentioned three Primary Sectors!)! (Sectors!... incidentally!... into which the sum communities on planet earth, are grouped!)!.◾Before it was called “Spamming (i.e., unsolicited messages in a chat, or forum... or the like!)", the terms used-- generally!-- for these actions, were “flooding”, and “trashing”! And suggesting!... that the early concerns involved MALICIOUS ATTACKS against "community members"!... and not about batch processing, and spin/ pitch (e.g., the "CONTENT" referred to, in the story about Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel!)!.◾Various attempts have been made-- and are being made!-- to release numbers for the origins of "SPAM" by country! However... it remains to be seen how much these stats reflect MALICIOUS ATTACKS!... versus attempts by sundry, to "batch communicate" SOUND CONTENT (e.g., to pitch the some SOUND notion, or product!)!.◾Of all "EMAIL SPAM", about 73%-- IT'S SAID!-- is attempting to steal the user’s identity in some way (through "phishing")!... including possible bank information, or gaining enough information to open new credit accounts from the user! But!... to include the aforementioned classes of "SPAM" with that associated with the historic reasons for "phishing", is to bend-- to the point of breaking!-- the traditional definition of the notion of "phishing (and... however unfortunate this traditional definition of the notion actually was!)"... and!... of what constitutes the-- I suggest!-- "pejorative description", of "SPAM"/ "Spam"!.◾Of the 90 trillion emails sent in 2009 (for example!), 81%-- IT'S SAID!-- is "SPAM"! That amounts to about-- for example!-- 200 billion "SPAM EMAILS" sent every day, in 2009! But!... again!... there is no clear indication of what this stat means!... and what these "SPAM EMAILS" are composed/ comprised of! And this is no less the case, today!.◾Though not called "SPAM"!... at least, when the ensuing mention, emerged!... Telegraphic messages were extremely common in the 19th century... and, in the United States, in particular! Western Union allowed Telegraphic messages on its network to be sent to multiple destinations... and thus, wealthy American residents tended to get numerous messages through Telegrams... presenting unsolicited investment offers (and, the like!)! This wasn’t nearly as much of a problem in Europe!... due to the fact, that telegraphy was regulated by European post offices!.◾"SPAM (i.e., 'electronic messages'!)", was first added to a major English dictionary (in the New Oxford Dictionary of English), in 1998! It defined "SPAM" as “Irrelevant, or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of newsgroups, or users.” And so... by 1998, the notion of "SPAM" had shifted from being nigh purely about batch communicating RATIONAL CONTENT, and the length/ size, and repetition of electronic messages, to being about ascribed, "MALICIOUS CONTENT (i.e., in reference to the terms, irrelevant, and inappropriate!)"! .Well!... W-H-O is to D-E-F-I-N-E what constitutes "I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T"?... and/ or, "I-N-A-P-P-R-O-P-R-I-A-T-E"?... and W-H-O is to determine whether PERSONAL BATCH COMMUNICATIONS should be subsumed as "irrelevant" and/ or "inappropriate" Net communications; AND THEREBY, DENYING INDIVIDUALS THEIR RESPECTIVE DEMOCRATIC, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREELY EXPRESS THEMSELVES IN A RESPONSIBLE BATCH MANNER OF THEIR CHOOSING; TO COMMUNICATE MATTERS THAT MAY GO BEYOND THEIR RESPECTIVE IMMEDIATE PERSONAL CONCERNS (E.G., BATCH COMMUNICATING THE MESSAGE YOU ARE NOW READING!); AND, AT ONCE, AFFORDING ONLY "ELITE INTERESTS" WITHIN BUSINESSES, BUREAUCRACIES, AND EVEN CERTAIN NGO+NPOS, THE SOLE/ EXCLUSIVE RESERVE TO COMMUNICATE IN A BATCH MANNER (AND, AS THESE PRIMARY SECTORS HAVE DONE, FOR GENERATIONS!)? The question to be asked concerning "SPAM/ Spam (so-called!)", is: "Are 'ELITE INTERESTS' now using this buzzword to 'D-E-L-I-M-I-T' the FREE EXPRESSION of netizens generally, in the G-U-I-S-E of protecting the public good from 'U-N-D-E-S-I-R-A-B-L-E C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S (e.g., ascribing the message you are now reading, as 'undesirable', based on some 'CORPORATE ASCRIPTION'!)'?".◾The general term "spam (with all small letters!)"... today!... has taken another slight shift in meaning! It is now becoming common for people to refer to A-N-Y unsolicited/ unwanted advertisements, messages, or telemarketer calls, as "SPAM"/ "Spam"!... and!... even if-- and when!-- the means of communication, may not even be electronically based! A code, for... if we (whoever we is!) don't like your FREE EXPRESSION, we'll label it SPAM, Spam, or spam!... AND E-N-D, YOUR "FREE EXPRESSSION (and, in particular, your BATCH COMMUNICATION!)"!.The CORPORATELY FOSTERED "public debate" over how to deal with "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" ignores the "CYBER ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM"!: CENSORSHIP ON THE INTERNET IS ALREADY AN ACCEPTED AND PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED POLICY!... A-N-D M-O-S-T P-E-O-P-L-E D-O-N-'-T R-E-A-L-I-Z-E T-H-A-T!.Not to long ago, America On Line announced its intention to start charging people a "license fee" to send bulk email to AOL subscribers!.The resulting shiver traveling up the spines of mailing list managers, and Internet providers all over the world, quickly morphed into an A-L-L T-O-O R-A-R-E "quasi-collective outcry", that actually forced AOL into a "half-step" backwards! Upon reconsideration, the Internet giant announced it would CONTINUE to offer the "license"!... but, for those who don't want the "license", it would also CONTINUE to treat bulk email as it had up to that point!.Whatever sighs of relief one might have discerned, are-- in reflection!-- the sounds of an Internet community THREATENED with a deadly "kick to the head"!... and relieved that it only had to cope with a "boot on its throat"!... AND!... W-I-T-H N-O L-E-G-A-L J-U-S-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N F-O-R I-T-S A-C-T-I-O-N-S (A-N-D, I-N P-A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-R, N-O C-O-N-S-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L J-U-S-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N!)!.In fact, the entire "pseudo public debate" over the potential harm in AOL's once "plan", overshadows the fact that large commercial providers' responses to the problem of "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" A-L-R-E-A-D-Y R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-S A D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S A-N-D P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L-L-Y C-R-I-P-P-L-I-N-G A-T-T-A-C-K O-N T-H-E C-U-L-T-U-R-E A-N-D F-U-N-C-T-I-O-N-I-N-G O-F T-H-E I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T A-S A V-E-H-I-C-L-E O-F F-R-E-E S-P-E-E-C-H!.Now let's be clear: email is in crisis because of the huge amount of unwanted bulk email people receive!... and like-- as I've expressed!-- the physical letters received at our respective front doors!.The issue, here, isn't that the large providers have finally RECOGNIZED THE PROBLEM!... and are trying to deal with "IT"! Trying to DEHUMIDIFY the house when it's already FLOODED, shows a lack of vision!... to say the least! And!... when one notes, that the "FLOOD" has-- in part!-- been instigated by "CORPORATE DAMNBUSTERS"!.The problem, is their RESPONSE! And!... at its root (and always a good place to start!)... it comes down to their D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N (IF S-U-C-H, SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE LUXURY!) of "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam"!... AND (AND R-E-G-A-R-D-L-E-S-S O-F T-H-E-I-R D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N!)!... WHETHER "NON-CORPORATE BATCH COMMUNICATIONS" SHOULD BE "CAUGHT" WITHIN T-H-E-I-R "FILTER OF JUSTICE"!.Most people have a pretty simple definition of the latest "electronic SPAM" variant, "spam": it's bulk communication, we don't want!.And we then go back to a similar "popular definition" that flows from the "unwanted bulk email" definition: "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam", is bulk email sent without a reasonable expectation that the people receiving it, would be interested in it!.And that corollary definition developed, because most of the "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" one receives is sent by people who have simply acquired, or purchased, huge lists of email addresses!... and, with no reasonable expectation-- as I've stated!-- that the people on these respective lists WOULD WANT TO READ WHAT THEY'VE BEEN SENT IN THE WAY OF A "BATCH COMMUNICATION"! It's "shotgun marketing"!... in its crudest form! So!... the recipient's "REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF INTEREST", is a pretty important component!.BUT!... the "COMMERCIAL INTERNET" ignores that! INSTEAD!... the LARGE PROVIDERS (groups that we're A-L-L supposed to allow to do their thing!) define "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" as A-N-Y "unsolicited bulk communication": e.g., email sent to more than a small handful of people (and S-O-M-E of whom-- of course!-- may not want it!)! And such smaller bulk emailers might do that, because they have no idea of what one might want!... or be interested in! And!... such bulk email distributors, and senders of such bulk emailings, have-- yet!-- to develop a method of figuring that out!.And so... the "COMMERCIAL INTERNET (and, its 'ELITE INTERESTS'!)" has declared a W-A-R against almost all bulk email/ communications!... making the terms "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" useless (i.e., redundant!)!... and making EMAIL/ CENSORSHIP (in particular!) an "O-B-L-I-G-A-T-O-R-Y P-U-B-L-I-C C-Y-B-E-R V-A-C-C-I-N-A-T-I-O-N P-O-L-I-C-Y"! In other words, do as T-H-E-Y SAY!... BUT!... NOT AS THEY D-O!.THESE, have "TAGGED" A-N-Y bulk email the moment "someone" complains (AND MAYBE!... FROM A ELITE CORPORATE BOARDROOM!... OR OTHER, "TACTICAL BUNKER"!)! And!... THESE make it S-O-O-O E-A-S-Y to complain!... that people can just push the "COMPLAINT BUTTON (AND WITHOUT KNOWING THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS RAMIFICATIONS OF THEIR 'PUSH'!)"! If there are a number of "complaints"!... and usually three, or four, are good enough!... THESE (AND THEIR AGENTS!) will block the issuer, of that email! THEY (AND THEIR AGENTS!) monitor "emailers" who are sending the SAME EMAIL to more than a handful of people!... and "list" "SPAMMERS/ Spammers/ spammers" who have had "CONVENIENT AND TACTICAL" "complaints" lodged against them (like those depicted in Ray Bradbury's book... and eventual film!... Fahrenheit 451!)!... so those with a "complaint history", can be MORE QUICKLY blocked! And!... this has now extended to the Copying and Pasting by such "TARGETED INDIVIDUALS", of "R-O-G-U-E", bulk comment logs/ clogs on multiple website blog stories (and!... even without one's use of a "personal" Email App, and/ or "personal" email address!... e.g., using the email address of an agreeing third party, to enable/ facilitate acceptance of a clog, in a given site!)!.What's M-O-S-T D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S, is that THEY keep records of the "TARGETED'S" IP address!... and the numeric address of the server, the "TARGETED" uses (e.g., through the efforts of groups covertly and overtly "ALGORITHMICALLY EMBEDDED" within websites, such as the group at, http://projecthoneypot.org/!... and bodies such as SPAMHAUS, and STOPFORUMSPAM!... and... through the implementation of "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" plugins, such as WP-SpamShield Anti-Spam!)!.Project Honey Pot is a web-based "honeypot network", which uses software embedded in web sites (IF YOU CAN IMAGINE CONSCIONABLE WEBSITES ALLOWING THIS!) to collect information about IP addresses used when harvesting e-mail addresses for "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam (but now!... also including those who have avoided 'personal' 'email App/ address deployment'!)", or other similar purposes, such as bulk mailing and "email fraud"! The "project" also solicits the "donation" of unused "MX entries" from domain owners!.In 2007 the "Project" began a number of NEW INITIATIVES!... including a "QuickLinks program" that makes it easier for more people to "p-a-r-t-i-c-i-p-a-t-e"!... as well as a system to track COMMENT LOG/ CLOG "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"! The Project has also launched a free new service called http:BL, which leverages the data to allow website administrators to keep "malicious web robots" off their sites! CODE, for!... let's keep any "PRYING EYES" from getting a "HANDLE" of what we're R-E-A-L-L-Y D-O-I-N-G!... AND!... HOW "P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L-L-Y S-T-A-N-K-Y, OUR S-T-U-F-F ACTUALLY S-T-I-N-K-S! In other words!... don't tell Ralph Nader and Naomi Klein what we're up to!... OR ANY OTHER JEW WITH A CONSCIENCE!.In addition to collecting information which is made available on a "top 25 list" at periodic intervals, the project organizers also "help" various "l-a-w e-n-f-o-r-c-e-m-e-n-t" agencies combat private and commercial unsolicited "BULK EMAILING O-F-F-E-N-C-E-S"! And!... overall!... work to "help" reduce the amount of "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam" being sent and received on the Internet (POOR NETIZENS!)! The information collected is also used in "research and development" of NEWER VERSIONS of the software, to further "I-M-P-R-O-V-E" the efforts of the group as a whole! But!... and in my view!... this is all just CODE, for... THE ELITE WILL CONTROL THE FLOW OF INFORMATION ON THE NET, AND "WE (THESE S-T-A-N-K P-O-W-E-R-S THAT BE!)" WILL PROMULGATE THE INSTIGATION OF CRYS AGAINST "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam (AND IF NEED BE!... FROM THEIR VERY BOARDROOMS, AND OTHER TACTICAL BUNKERS!-- BEFORE LUNCH!)", AND WILL PROMOTE THE MANIPULATION OF IP ADDRESSES (AND!... ANYTHING ELSE THESE CAN MANIPULATE!-- TO "WIN THE DAY"! AND!... DAMN ANYONE, THAT GETS IN THEIR WAY!)!.Project Honey Pot was founded, and is managed by Unspam Technologies, Inc.... and in addition to "working" with various "law enforcement" agencies (A SAD JEST!... TO SAY THE LEAST!), the group "affiliates" with the "Internet Law Group", and ViaWest!.I-- personally!-- have a different rationale for wanting to block (AND NOT JUST MERELY BLOCK!) a website, when a website communicates "HAZARDOUS CONTENT!... i.e., when a website den(ys) my access to ITS COMMENTS CONTENT by stealing (through ITS EMBEDDED SUBVERSIVE CONTENT!) my IP address, and then uses this to BLACKLIST me! Then!... I want to be able to BLACKLIST such a site from ITS USE of the Net!... AND NOT JUST FROM "MY" PC! And if "I" shouldn't be allowed to use such a measure/ technoma, THEN I DEMAND THAT SUCH A MEASURE BE INVOKED BY A DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS SUPPORTING GROUP M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D TO DO SO!... AND THAT THE ICON FOR SUCH A GROUP, BE AFFIXED ON MY-- AND EVERYONE ELSE'S!-- RESPECTIVE PC'S TASKBAR (BUT YEA, ICT DEVICE!)! .NO WEBSITE OWNER... NOR TECHNOMA IN THE CONTROL OF A SITE OWNER!... SHOULD BE ABLE TO CAPTURE AN IP ADDRESS OF A USER!... LET ALONE, TO USE SAME, TO BLOCK A USER FROM ACCESSING ONE'S SITE! AND USERS SHOULD BE MADE I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF WHO AND/ OR WHAT HAS MADE OFF WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE IP ADDRESS, THROUGH AN A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y "WEBSITE INTERFACE TECHNOMA"! AND!... AFTERUPON A USER'S CONFIRMATION OF WHO, AND/ OR WHAT HAS ABSCONDED WITH ONE'S IP ADDRESS, SUCH A NETIZEN SHOULD BE AFFORDED AN A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y TECHNOMA/ MECHANISM, TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ END OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L R-E-A-L AND I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T THREATS TO A USER'S RESPECTIVE SITE ACCESS!... AND RESULTANTLY, TO A NETIZEN'S DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS! FOR!... TO LEAVE THE ACTUAL INTERVENTION RE A SITE OWNER'S BREACHES IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE NETIZENS WHO ARE POTENTIALLY ILL-EQUIPPED TO TACKLE THE TECHNOMA WITH WHICH USERS MAY BE CONFRONTED, IS TO--BY DEFAULT!-- ENABLE THOSE MORE EQUIPPED, AND SKILLED, TO UNDERMINE THE WEBSITE ACCESS OF NETIZENS!... AND, THEIR RESPECTIVE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS! FOR!... SOME OF THE BREACHES AGAINST USERS CURRENTLY IN PLAY, ARE BY WAY OF "P-R-O-F-E-S-S-I-O-N-A-L I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T G-A-T-E-K-E-E-P-E-R-S/ P-L-A-Y-E-R-S", P-O-S-S-E-S-S-I-N-G S-O-P-H-I-S-T-I-C-A-T-E-D, A-N-D I-N-C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-S-I-B-L-E A-L-G-O-R-I-T-H-M-S!.However!... if a holder of an IP address poses an I-L-L-E-G-A-L software/ hardware threat to a site, then the most appropriate security measure for a website owner, is to invoke an A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y MECHANISM, TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ CESSATION OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S TO ONE'S RESPECTIVE "USER- ACCESSED" SITE!... AND!... TO ONE'S DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS! AND OWNERS SHOULD BE MADE I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF WHO AND/ OR WHAT HAS I-L-L-E-G-A-L-L-Y POSED A SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE THREAT TO ONE'S SITE, THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE REMOTE DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS INTERMEDIARY'S WEBSITE INTERFACE TECHNOMA! FOR!... TO LEAVE THE INTERVENTION RE USER-BASED BREACHES IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE SITE OWNERS, RATHER THAN AN A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y, IS TO INVITE THE POTENTIAL A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y D-E-N-I-A-L OF WEBSITE ACCESS TO USERS!... AND THEREBY, TO POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF WEBSITE USERS! .AND SO!... EVERY STATE OF THE ART (S.O.T.A.) SECURITY MEASURE AVAILABLE MUST BE INVOKED, THAT WOULD PREVENT A USER'S IP ADDRESS FROM BEING STOLEN!... AND IN ORDER TO UPHOLD A USER'S FREE ACCESS TO PUBLIC SITES, AND TO PROTECT THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AFFORDED NETIZENS! AND!... CONVERSELY!... EVERY SOTA SECURITY MEASURE AVAILABLE MUST BE INVOKED, THAT WOULD PROTECT AN OWNER'S SITE FROM A USER'S I-L-L-E-G-A-L R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S TO OWNERS' SITE OPERATIONS! AND!... IF THERE IS TO BE A-N-Y A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E WEBSITE OWNER CONTROLLED, AND SITE-USER CONTROLLED O-F-F-T-H-E-S-H-E-L-F, S-T-A-N-D-A-L-O-N-E TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ END OF R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROVERBIAL FENCE, THEN LET BOTH OWNERS AND USERS BE U-T-T-E-R-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF THEIR RESPECTIVE (M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D) M-U-T-U-A-L O-B-L-I-G-A-T-I-O-N TO IMPLEMENT ONLY A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D/ M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS!... OR, SUCH SUFFER THE CIVIL AND/ OR CRIMINAL REPERCUSSIONS/ CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR USE OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L U-N-A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS (AND!... REPERCUSSIONS/ CONSEQUENCES, BY WAY OF THE TASKBAR ICON-- AND AUTHORITY!-- AS AFOREMENTIONED!)!.And therefore!... the technoma, and practice, discussed at Goog result, "IP address blocking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"... poses a FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to a user's Right to Access a given site!... to RESPONSIBLE AND CONSCIONABLE FREE EXPRESSION on a given site (HOWEVER POLITICALLY, AND/ OR SOCIALLY "PROBLEMATIC"!)!... and, thereby, to a user's Digital Human Rights! And thus!... the information at Goog result, "Block a specific IP address from accessing your website - Media"... should not only be disallowed on the Net!... the site itself, should be S-H-U-T D-O-W-N!-- AND, EVERY SITE LIKE IT! For!... the threat possed at this just mentioned site, and similar sites, is as much of a threat to the day-to-day FREE EXPRESSION of netizens, as any Government-based commissions and/ or omissions (directly, and/ or indirectly evidenced!)!.In fact!... my recent "CYBEREPHIPHANY", and "CYBEREURIKA MOMENT", re a method for RESPONSIBLY RANKING Search Engine search results, is as follows....IT IS MY POSITION, THAT ALL SEARCH RESULTS (REGARDLESS OF THE SEARCH ENGINE BEING USED!) SHOULD BE "M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D" TO BE W-E-I-G-H-T-E-D I-N F-A-V-O-U-R OF RESULTS THAT ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENTARY (AND THUS, REQUIRING A COMMENTS SECTION TO BE PRESENT WITHIN SITES, IN ORDER FOR A WEBSITE TO BE GIVEN "PREFERENTIAL RANKING" WITHIN A-N-Y SEARCH ENGINE!)! AND THUSLY!... ELIMINATING THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF SEARCH ENGINES, AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY "ELITE INTERESTS", FROM INDIVIDUALLY, OR JOINTLY, "M-A-N-I-P-U-L-A-T-I-N-G" "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY AWAY FROM "TOP BILLING (THROUGH 'SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION'/ SEO ALGORITHMS!... AND/ OR OTHER 'A-N-T-I SEARCH NEUTRALITY' AND 'A-N-T-I NET NEUTRALITY' ALGORITHMS!)"!... AND!... SIMPLY BECAUSE, SEARCH ENGINES, AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY INTERESTS FEEL, THAT THESE ARE DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY ADVERSELY "POLITICALLY/ SOCIALLY IMPACTED (BY COMMISSION, AND/ OR OMISSION!... DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY EVIDENCED!)" BY THE OTHERWISE A-L-L-O-W-E-D "POSITIONAL RANKING" OF SUCH "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY (E.G., THE MESSAGE YOU ARE NOW READING!)! AND THUSLY!... NO "NEUTRAL WEBSITE (I.E., ONE HAVING N-O C-O-M-M-E-N-T-S S-E-C-T-I-O-N!)" SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE TOP OF SEARCH RESULTS RANKINGS! UNLESS!... N-O C-O-M-M-E-N-T-S HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED WITHIN THE SUM NUMBER OF THE "THEN" "COMMENTS FACILITATING SITES" LISTED WITHIN A SEARCH ENGINE'S SEARCH RESULTS (RESPECTIVE OF A GIVEN SEARCH EXPRESSION USED!)!... OR!... THE SITE DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO PUBLIC COMMENTARY (I.E., THE NATURE OF THE WEBSITE, "LOGICALLY PRECLUDES" FACILITATING PUBLIC DISCUSSION!)! THIS WILL THEN MEAN, THAT F-R-E-E D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N WILL "HOLD SWAY" OVER ANY AND ALL OTHER "RANKING CONSIDERATIONS", RE THE RANKING OF SEARCH ENGINE SEARCH RESULTS! THE NEXT STEP, WOULD BE TO ADDRESS THE DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS INHERE WITHIN THE VERY DESIGN (OR FAILED DESIGN!) OF THE COMMENTS SECTION WITHIN RESPECTIVE WEBSITES!... AND, IN ADDITION, TO PUTTING A STOP TO IP ADDRESS THEFT, AND MANIPULATION!.For example, how is the nonsense at, https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466223-who-deleted-or-removed-my-comment-, allowed to go on anywhere in the free western world?... let alone, in North America!.No Blog Hosting Service should be allowed to ban a netizen across multiple sites because "I-T" "feels" that a netizen is issuing "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"! First of all, we're talking about SEPARATE WEBSITES in the just noted URL!... and second, it's been traditionally up to a site (although, this is deemed a F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L V-I-O-L-A-T-I-O-N of Digital Human Rights!) to make a "judgement call" re a user's continued use of a given site! It's not for a Blog Hosting Service... and based on one or two "complaints" offered up (or not!) re "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"!... to then deny access to ALL SITES that that Blog Hosting Service services! And with regard to Disqus-- specifically!-- its site information indicates that it's NOT INVOLVED in the issues involving CONTENT!... and, that such issues must be addressed by a Site's "Moderator", and "Site Community"! But!... even such a determination by "Site Moderators", and "Site Communities", is the "slippery slope" to entrenching "CYBER GATED COMMUNITIES"!... AND THEREFORE, SUCH AN EVIL SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED ANYWHERE ON THE NET! And one additional NASTY REVELATION re Disqus!... AND A C-L-E-A-R I-N-D-I-C-A-T-I-O-N that attempts are being made to eliminate A-N-Y F-O-R-M of NON-CORPORATE INTERNET BATCH COMMUNICATION (although, in this instance, it's merely repeating a message at different sites!)!... is a notice I've received at various sites afterupon "Sending" a comment, that the sent message was "flagged" as a "Duplicate message" (or words such as, "You've Sent This Message Before!)! .In other words, despite being on an entirely different site!... and, in most instances, never having used the site before!... and!... Disqus is S-A-I-D to be "UNINVOLVED" with the CONTENT on a site!... Disqus is AUTOMATICALLY flagging content that has appeared on another Disqus operated site! And although I have-- for now!-- technically overcome this A-P-P-A-L-L-Y-I-N-G B-R-E-A-C-H of Digital Human Rights (and!... as well!... their denial of the ability to Copy and Paste larger segments of prepared text in a Clog window!)!... their very ability to even invoke such Digital Human Rights denying technoma, indicates a S-H-O-C-K-I-N-G L-A-C-K on the part of our N-E-T G-A-T-E-K-E-E-P-E-R-S (both L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E, and I-L-L-I-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E!) to "C-H-E-C-K" this "I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T S-C-O-U-R-G-E/ B-L-I-G-H-T"! And so!... if someone is anxious to "spread the word" regarding a deemed NECESSARY MESSAGE for the PUBLIC GOOD, Disqus (and other such Blog Hosting Services!) will "E-N-S-U-R-E" that that message will be limited to an "originating site"! WELL!... NOT ON MY WATCH! And!... just in case!... hello Ralph, and Naomi!.Many "INTERNET GATEKEEPERS" have come out over the years claiming that allowing ANONYMITY to flourish on the Net, is a threat to "c-u-s-t-o-m-e-r s-e-c-u-r-i-t-y"!... and should be stopped at all costs! And so, some sites have set up sophisticated hurdles for would-be participants, so that the CLIQUE "CYBER GATED CUSTOMER COMMUNITY CLIENTELE" of the site, can communicate amongst themselves!... minus those annoying/ pesky "ANONYMOUS L-I-B-E-R-A-L C-Y-B-E-R G-A-T-E-C-R-A-S-H-E-R-S"!.But!... lo!... and behold!... these very same S-E-L-F_A-P-P-O-I-N-T-E-D and hypocritical "INTERNET GATEKEEPERS" have been instrumental in allowing local TV, Radio, and Newspapers to disappear from communities!... and, thereby, allowing corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests" to run local communities as these see fit (I.E., I-N T-H-E B-O-O-T-H!... I-N T-H-E B-A-C-K!... I-N T-H-E C-O-R-N-E-R!... I-N T-H-E D-A-R-K!)! And without local TV, Radio, or Newspapers looking over the shoulders of corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests", there's no telling what these interests are up to! And... for all we know!... such could be up to theft, rape, child abuse!... and even murder! And how would we know otherwise?... who's holding them to account?.And so... what's to be done? How are we to hold corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests" to account, when all local corporate media coverage is absent from local communities? While!... all the while!... corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests"-- AND THEIR SUPPORTERS!-- would compel netizens to sign up, sign on, sign in, log in, log on, register, become a member, secure an account, give one's name, give one's physical address, give one's email, and otherwise receive their "BEASTLY MARK", in order to "SHARE" in their "GATED COMMUNICATION"! A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G!.The answer, is... obviously!... TO REMOVE CORPORATE, POLITICAL, AND "PSEUDO-SOCIAL SPECIAL INTEREST" CONTROL OVER INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY WORLDWIDE! AND!... TO MANDATE THAT ICT (HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE!) BE MADE W-H-O-L-L-Y D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C!... AND!... THAT N-O I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T WILL BE ALLOWED TO BREACH THE DEMOCRATIC DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS OF NETIZENS (DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY!... BY COMMISSION AND/ OR OMISSION!)! .These efforts re "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ spam, and IP manipulation, are supported by a mini "industry" of "spam detection companies"!... the "CORPORATE INTERNET'S" version, of the "VIGILANTE (something akin to the Conservative 'TEAPARTY MOVEMENT'!)"!... who conduct similar "monitoring" tactics as the LARGE PLAYERS invoke!... and publish "BLACKLISTS" of suspected "SPAMMERS"/ "Spammers"/ "spammers", and hosts of "SPAMMERS"/ "Spammers"/ spammers"!.So... to return to AOL!... to have your email that's been sent to a subscriber of these "providers" blocked, you don't even have to send bulk email!... all you need do is to SHARE A SERVER with people who've been "LISTED"!... and almost all of us, share servers! How conveniently UNDEMOCRATIC!... AND A-N-T-I SOCIAL!.Bringing the D-A-N-G-E-R of all this into relief!... some companies take "short-cuts" that effectively stop communications!-- "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam", or not! AOL routinely blocked, hindered, or delayed emails with the SAME CONTENT sent to more than a threshold number of AOL subscribers! Many Internet workers thought the "threshold" was about 50, to 100! AOL wasn't saying! But the interference happened!... and it made no difference if these people had signed on to the email list, or not!.In general... short-cut, or not!... if you were a subscriber of a major commercial provider, there was a good possibility you didn't receive all of the legitimate email that was sent to you!... including messages from a list to which you've subscribed! And the same is true today!... and on sundry platforms!.You'd never know it, unless you noticed something wrong: they don't tell you that they've HIJACKED your email! The people who send it to you, won't be informed! They don't tell the provider either! That I know!... from personal experience! We find out if someone tells us that recipients of their email are mysteriously not receiving it! Then we inquire with the provider of that recipient!... and... to remove the "block"!... we must engage in a "Kafkaesque process" that consumes time, and energy-- and, which must often be repeated, periodically!.While blocking and destroying your email is clearly an attack on the First Amendment in America, the timing and political import shouldn't be lost on ANYONE! Just at the time when CARING MOVEMENTS are starting to use the Internet effectively, such are faced with measures that could D-R-I-V-E T-H-E-S-E V-O-I-C-E-S I-N-T-O S-I-L-E-N-C-E!.All of the major, successful Internet campaigns run by progressive activists (from impeachment, to health care, to anti-war, to "Katrina-like events"!) use UNSOLICITED EMAIL! HOW COULD IT BE DONE OTHERWISE? How in the world do you communicate with people to get them information they don't have, IF YOU ONLY EMAIL TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE TOLD YOU THEY WANT IT! ONE COULD NEVER BUILD A CAMPAIGN!... LET ALONE, EXPAND IT! .Our traditional tools have always included leaflets in the mail!... flyers handed out!... public speeches, and phone calls! And now!... we have this powerful tool!... the Internet! We've been able to use historic tools, because... for a century!... we have fought tooth, and fingernail, to protect and expand our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (AND AROUND THE WORLD!) TO PROTECT "F-R-E-E" SPEECH!.Sure!... and once again!... unwanted email can be a pain! And the same... again!... is true of bulk postal mail, and leaflets!... and also!... with live events shoved in one's face during a rally!... and when street organizers INSIST in promoting a message that such feel "should require" minutes of one's valuable time, to listen to!.But few of us would ask the post office to stop any of our mail, or ask the police to arrest a street organizer (save, for an instance of OVERT ABUSE!)! Most THINKING SOULS understand... that in the end!... these "inconvenient incursions" benefit us all!... and!... sometimes!... give us information, WE NEED! And THINKING SOULS understand, that REPRESSION of these activities, would create FAR GREATER PROBLEMS, than the ones such "democratic activities"-- supposedly!-- represent!.And!... there's NO DOUBT, that our "social need" to communicate will become even greater!... because our movements (and due to the unique benefits of the Net!) are continuously expanding, and we're emailing to many more people, than ever before! This, though!... then!... as a consequence-- AND UNFORTUNATELY!-- means greater "ELITE MONITORING"!... higher numbers of UNPROVOKED BLOCKING (whether of emails, or comment logs/ clogs in Comment Sections in websites!... if websites even facilitate the latter!), and further "campaigns of complaints"!.What's most painfully ironic about this COMMERCIAL RESPONSE to "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam", is that it punishes CARING MOVEMENTS for something "SOMEONE ELSE" is doing! CARING MOVEMENTS don't email to large lists these know NOTHING about! Such can't afford it!... and... these don't organize in that way! CARING MOVEMENTS' bulk email is sent to carefully developed lists!... usually shared!... organization to organization!... and based on recipients' demonstrated interest, in the issue/ s that the CARING have emailed them about!.That's not "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam"!... by any reasonable definition of the PERVERSE EXPRESSIONS! Although!... and oddly enough!... IT DOES APPLY TO OUR "COMMERCIAL BULK EMAIL PROVIDERS"! How quaint!.So!... what's the answer to "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" to be? Allowing our "ELITE INTERESTS"... with the aid of those THESE have managed to con into "BARRICADING THE CYBER GATES" of the "CYBER CITY"!... to P-R-O-T-E-C-T U-S! I don't think so! And I don't think CONSCIONABLE and RESPONSIBLE netizens would want such I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S to run the "CYBER SHOW"! After all!... THE NET DOESN'T BELONG TO "T-H-E-M"!.What netizens should be on guard against, is "CENSORSHIP S.P.A.M. (i.e., CENSORSHIP SOCIO_PSYCHOPATHIC ANTISOCIAL MALWARE)"!.The "COMMERCIAL INTERNET" is not going to come up with the R-I-G-H-T S-O-L-U-T-I-O-N-S unless the people who use the Internet C-O-M-P-E-L it to do so! And the first step in empowering the "P-E-O-P-L-E", is for our CONSCIONABLE and RESPONSIBLE CARING MOVEMENTS to enter into the debate over Digital Human Rights!... and to C-O-M-P-E-L the debate, beyond the limited terms, "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"!... and towards, CENSORSHIP S.P.A.M.! And!... for our CARING to make the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L P-R-O-T-E-C-T-I-O-N of our GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, and ORGANIZING, as high of a priority on our SOCIAL AND POLITICAL AGENDAS, A-S A-N-Y B-E-I-N-G B-R-O-U-G-H-T T-O O-U-R A-T-T-E-N-T-I-O-N B-Y E-L-I-T-E I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S!.To sum up... what we need, is a unique Icon on our respective taskbars, that... when tapped!... WILL SUMMON A GLOBAL COALITION OF CYBER ADVOCACY INTERESTS (THE LIKES OF WHICH, HAVE NEVER BEEN AMASSED ON PLANET EARTH TILL NOW!)!... THAT WILL EFFICIENTLY, AND EFFECTIVELY END THE SCURRILOUS SCOURGE OF "ELISTIST PRICKISM", AND WILL BRING THE WHOLE OF THE NET INTO "GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPLIANT" DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS HARMONY! P-E-R-I-O-D!.And to that end!... I herewith introduce the notion of the CHAIN COMMENT LOG/ CHAIN CLOG, in the needed battle against CENSORSHIP S.P.A.M. (and the difference between a Chain Clog and a historic chain letter being, no email addresses need be communicated in order to promote the Chain Log message!... just Copying, and Pasting!)! Indeed!... AND FOR ANY SITE!... one never need communicate one's own name, or email address, in order to log a comment (but simply, a non-abusive/ abusing/ identity stealing chosen name, and a PUBLIC or SHARED EMAIL!)! And if a website hints at email verification in order to ratify a clog!... and until Digital Human Rights are put in place to outlaw such verification of PUBLIC/ SHARED emails!... then one should simply move on! And!... although it is advisable to avoid any site, and Blog Hosting Service, that demands one's use of a password, it is discretionary as to whether one feels "comfortable" with a site's handling of a communication of a Chain Clog! All the best!... and happy Chain Clogging! Oh!... and upon running into any updated version of this message, simply dump the older version, in favor of the newer! But!... be wary of any DEMONSTRABLE INCONSISTENCIES! In other words, compared scripts!.Please!... no emails!.P.S.: Some trivia concerning "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam (i.e., both the luncheon meat, and electronic communications!)", is as follows....◾Other "backronyms" like "Spam" associated with "SPAM", are: “Something Posing As Meat”; “Specially Processed Artificial Meat”; “Stuff, Pork and Ham”; “Spare Parts Animal Meat”; and “Special Product of Austin Minnesota”!.◾"Backronyms" associated with "INTERNET SPAM/ Spam/ spam" include: “stupid pointless annoying messages”, and “shit posing as mail”! But the ULTIMATE LIST of such "backronyms"-- I'm sure!-- is longer than netizens have time to read!... and-- probably-- a tad more convoluted!.◾When the US offered the UK citizens affected by WWII, SPAM... while the UK struggled to rebuild their agricultural base!... the British citizens assumed it was an acronym!... and they "backronymed" it to, “Specially Processed American Meats”!.◾"SPAM" is a precooked meat product originally made of ham!... but-- now!-- is made from a variety of available meats! And, similar to "Spam"!... that was once composed of a clearly defined (though unfortunate!) notion of electronic communication!... but!... now!... is composed of a variety of available definitions, by ELITE INTERESTS, AND PSEUDO-SOCIAL SPAM OBJECTING NETIZENS!.◾Austin, Minnesota, is known as “SPAM town, USA” (and hence the previously cited "backronym"..."Special Product of Austin Minnesota"!)!... and not for INTERNET SPAM!... but, for the fact, that the town produces all of the food product sold in North America, South America, and Australia! "SPAM" sold in the UK, is produced in Denmark!... by the company, "Tulip"!... with which, Hormel has "farmed out" its product... and production!.◾Billions of cans of "SPAM", have been sold!.◾In the United States, Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, eat the most "SPAM" per capita!... with an average of about 16 tins per person, per year!.◾Hawaii, Guam, and CNMI, all have McDonald’s restaurants that serve SPAM! Burger Kings in Hawaii also serve SPAM!... since 2007!... to better compete with the McDonalds there! And just like Internet Cafes!... which become the breeding ground, for the electronic counterpart!.◾Due to the extreme popularity of "SPAM" in Hawaii, Hawaiians have nicknamed "SPAM", “The Hawaiian Steak”! And no!... I don't know whether Barack Obama!... or his family!... like SPAM (i.e., the meat!)!

Re: Re: THE FUTURE OF COMMENT CLOG WINDOWS IN WEBSITES

Dogs with four bones and swan never been amoung animals in Africa.

Dogs with four bones and swan never been amoung animals in Africa and lives under 5-7 years and grow up during 6 months and not more.Streving in Africa are same dogs with four bones and swan.Dogs lives with unknown diagnoces and just tacke in themselves and dose not eat anything.

I was a frequent lurker on the NPR comments section, and I think this is a good decision. Unless they had the budget to employ extensive, in-house moderators to police the comment section and evict the trolls, there was no way to save it. It was like the wastes of Mordor, the ocean just needed to wash it away. I tried commenting a few times, but the comment section was always trolled by the same 10 white, middle-aged men who though NPR was a liberal rag anyway and wanted to assault anyone who posted anything out of line with their idealism. Then there were those who spent a vast amount of time talking about NPR "censorship" and blah blah. It was completely idiotic. Any actual responses or though provoking comments on the issue were quickly buried in partisan shouting and ad hominem attacks and general BS. To be honest, the comments were a distraction from the actual news and I am GLAD they are GONE. Although, I can think of about 10 retired white guys who probably just lost their sole purpose in life.

But this is the great awakening 2012 Project Mayhem! Don't you like it? We are all one!

We don't need to comment on news webites or any websites. Just let the editorials do it for us and tell us how we should live or think!

The best feature of all is the coming of the microchip in your forehead or forearm that will allow the government to give you premium protection from yourself because that's part of the great awakening.

You as a human are too broken to make proper choices so a higher group of hierarchy is to do it for you under a *global communal* team. :)

They will *inform* you as we can't use the word tell as it's too negative and politically incorrect. They will inform you when you need to go shopping and what products are healthy to eat.

You will all be on welfare as who needs to work? Robotic AI will do it all for you as they will be way smarter and faster so you just need to service them and clean the machines.